| |
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message
news:37b3f4c3.121015478@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.cad.dev, "Adam Howard" <abhoward10@hotmail.com> writes:
> > [...]
> > Getting back to lugnet.cad.*: If you don't like it vote against it. • That
> > is our way of policing part author contributions.
>
> There's no way to vote out a whole person if that person has repeatedly
> demonstrated an inability to create parts that pass?? Why would you not
> want to silence a noise at its source? I don't understand.
Todd, I think you're making this too personal. Vote against a part not a
person.
> > And if you don't want to read someone's post set up a filter.
> > [...]
>
> So put the burden on everyone at their end, rather than fixing the problem
> at its source. And to heck with anyone who reads using the web, because • it
> doesn't have filters like that. And by letting everyone set up filters,
> make the group less attractive to outsiders (since everyone inside the • group
> is ignoring the problem). That's what you're saying. I don't understand.
I honestly don't know what to do here. Perhaps the suggestion of a
mentoring committee should be looked at more. I wouldn't mind being a
member of this committee, it should only be about parts though. I also
wouldn't mind screening his posts- for possible rudeness and aggrevating
requests, but I feel uncomfortable about making judgements on someone else's
intelectual property.
> > In defense of Jonathan: He is obviously very enthusiastic about the • LDraw
> > project.
>
> Why does enthusiasm count more than quality? I don't understand.
Did I say that? But in answer to your question look at kids in school: You
start out not knowing much and the quality of your work is poor, but if you
are enthusiastic about a subject you learn as much as you can about it and
gradually your quality improves. It doesn't mean that enthusiasm is more
important than quality it just means without enthusiasm in something your
quality won't improve (those who are born geniuses are exceptions).
> > and I chose to ignore them because the good outweigh the bad. • Jonathan's
> > good traits in my opinion are: enthusiasm, an interest in LDraw, an • interest
> > in Lego, his parts are getting better,
>
> But they're still not good enough, are they. That's all that really • should
> fundamentally matter, I would think.
Take a look at the following parts:
3899 Town Cup
4528 Town Fryingpan
4529 Town Saucepan
30044 Arched Window
They all have visible flaws. 3 were apparently made by James. Are you
going to say that James' parts aren't good enough for his project. I am
going the extremest route here. I believe better quality is demanded now
than when the project started. Mainly because POV-Ray and LDlite can show
flaws easily. I believe most new part authors do look at existing parts to
determine the level of quality they should use, which is why there are a lot
of questions about quality standards. I think that's one reason Jonathan
asks so many questions about them. Personally I feel a part should be
replicated as closely to the original as possible. But when you look at
some older parts you wonder how far is overboard (for me it's not overboard
until it's sunk to the bottom). I guess my whole point is... there is no
set standard for the quality of ldraw parts, the only standard is our voting
process which catches a lot of mistakes and asks the author to correct them.
And fundamentally the quality of the parts does matter, but we already have
a method to check for that.
> > and he is eager to correct them when
> > a problem is found- this tells me he really wants to make quality parts • and
> > is learning how to.
>
> This tells me that he is careless and that he does -not- really wnat to • make
> quality parts. Other people are the ones finding errors, not him. And • the
> errors people have found have been obvious ones, not subtle ones.
I don't know what to say here. I like to see the good in all people and
think he is trying to be carefull. And again voting is the means for
checking part quality. However, if the group decides we need a screening
committee for parts, made by unproven authors, before they are submited for
the official vote then we need to do that. I feel I fall into this group
and wouldn't mind doing this. Then as our quality improves the screening
commitee could graduate us by giving us direct vote submission priveleges.
How do people feel about that solution?
> > Another good trait that you can add to the list above: I don't think
> > Jonathan has ever posted a negative criticism about anyone.
>
> It's there if you read between the lines. Take this, for example:
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/cad/?n=2320
Remember I try to see the good in everyone. You could take his post here a
number of ways, another less noted is that he was making a jest. In other
words he knew his position with the group and he was just trying to make a
bad joke.
I really didn't want to get involved with this discussion, but it seemed to
be snowballing more and more. One thing I don't think has been mentioned is
commending Jonathan for acknowledging to the group that he is aware of the
problems he is causing and that he is going to actively try to correct them.
He has started to use capital letters.
Thanks,
Adam
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| (...) I thought parts were created by people. If you vote against a person, you effectively vote against a whole collection of parts all at once, which seems to me a much more efficient way to filter out rubbish. But I should stop questioning the (...) (25 years ago, 13-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| (...) There's no way to vote out a whole person if that person has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to create parts that pass?? Why would you not want to silence a noise at its source? I don't understand. (...) So put the burden on everyone at (...) (25 years ago, 13-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
|
146 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
